Lessons Learned from Delegating

Sometime when you’ve got nothing better to do head down to your local Silly Hall or Regional Government (if you are lucky enough to have two municipal governments) and delegate.

 It is your civic duty. In that spirit I combed my hair, put on the closest thing that I’ve got to church clothes, and headed off to the Region of Halton Canada some time back to address the budget. 

Delegating is always a learning experience. 

Here is what I learned. 

First, when you are finished speaking don’t sit down. Once you sit down Councillors will ask staff questions and you will have no ability to respond. Staff can say anything like: Bob Wood has a point but he would have more credibility on poverty issues if he hadn’t got his Grade Eight diploma out of a vending machine. 

Second, Councillors will not ask questions that you are expecting. I came prepared to answer in the negative as to whether I or members of my immediate family and/or committee colleagues had ever been members of the Communist Party. You can imagine my surprise when asked whether I thought water rates are regressive. 

Third, expect to engage in philosophical first year university discussions when you believe the agenda is fairly focussed or alternatively expect to focus on the agenda when you would like to engage in airy fairy dialogue. 

And finally, remember when you get the urge and feel like delegating that these issues are always too complicated for the public. That is why God created politicians, I guess.

Not Much Has Changed

(This story was originally published June 07, 2010 on the Hamilton Spectator Poverty Project - No Excuse https://poverty.thespec.com/page/2/ 

A "SHIFT" TO SIDEWALKS FROM SOCIAL SERVICES

The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) assists municipalities with their social program costs. Recently OMPF reconciled the 2008 allocations against real expenditures and costs and as a result many municipalities received more money. Hamilton got about $3.1 million dollars; the Region of Niagara got $2.1 million.

I became aware of this today when reading a bulletin from CATCH (Citizens at City Hall). CATCH is a volunteer community group that encourages civic participation in Hamilton. The CATCH story focused on the fact that Hamilton councillors were all going to be getting about $250,000 each to spend in their wards on sidewalk repairs. "In a shift from normal practice," they apparently decided not to follow the usual priority setting process for allocating funds. 

This is indeed a shift but it is an election year and you'll see more shifts and other silliness before October 25.

The CATCH story went on to note that $3.1 million of the $3.6 million fund being divvied up by the councillors came from the OMPF reconciliation dollars. 

But shouldn't that money be going back into social services? That suggestion was rejected by council.

I mentioned Niagara. It took its monies and put $600,000 into Emergency Medical Services and the remaining $1.5 million into an account to offset the Community Services net deficit. That makes sense; seems logical.   

Up in Thunder Bay, the city got $1.3 million back. Government member Michael Gravelle, the MPP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, was "absolutely delighted about this additional funding for social programs and other services."

Hamilton politicians seem to be marching to a different drummer here. Or am I missing something?

A leak of  raw sewage into Cootes Paradise in Hamilton has, not surprisingly, caused quite an uproar in the Ambitious City. Citizens are outraged that City Council decided to keep the spill a secret.  Council has the right to keep certain legal matters confidential.  Was it appropriate in this case?  Probably not.  But it is hard to judge when you don't have all the facts that were shared in camera.

Anyway, I've been writing on municipal politics and decided to share a chapter that deals with in camera meetings and Council transparency in the fictional town of Clarovista.   Here it is.   

---------

Receive and File

By Councillor Kenneth Williams

I find land use planning stuff kind of complicated. The reports are like those
instructions for putting together the kid’s Christmas presents in that, while the salient points were repeated so as even the thickest reader can understand them, they always seem sort of back to front to this dim-witted decision maker.

Case in point is tonight’s Planning Report 14-2727-17.

It is dealing with what our staff call redundant park space.

Apparently, we have too much park space in Clarovista.

And we have a policy that if none of our public sector partners want such property, we can sell it off at market value price to whoever wants it. But how does one put a monetary value on parkland? I, for one, have no idea.

This particular “redundant” space is a small parcel of land located along the shoreline of Lake Vista. The property measures about 7.5 acres. I’ve heard it referred to as a passive park.  Such a park allows for the preservation of natural habitat and permits only a low level of development.  The park is well used by families, birders, picnickers and seniors. There are picnic benches and in the summer a Music in the Park program - Vista Voices - draws small but enthusiastic artists and audiences.  J.P Gormley owns an adjacent property. His plans for a hotel/marina/convention centre at that site aren’t going anywhere – or so it seems.

Mayor Martin has been aggressive in pursuing the sale of unneeded municipal assets.  But he hasn’t championed a park sale.  Not until tonight.

There is great public interest in this issue.  The Council Chambers are full and there is an overflow crowd in the Atrium.

The staff report supports a rezoning that would enable a sale but has many, many conditions attached to it - fourteen to be exact.   The report features several appendices, maps with different shadings, asterisks here and there and a suggestion for a holding zone.

In my view, the person who would purchase this property with all these conditions is the kind of guy who would invest in a Trump Tower in Bathurst Inlet. I mean no one is going to buy it.

The report is under discussion.

It seems my colleagues are interested in calling the vote and as it stands now the sale of the parkland will not happen.

For his part, Mayor Martin is not smiling tonight.  He asks to go in camera.

The public is never happy to see Councillors go behind closed doors.  However, the Municipal Act lays out clear situations where in camera meetings are allowed.

In this case, as our discussion relates “to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board” an in camera session is permitted.

Before we head into closed session in an adjacent committee room, we clear all other items from the evening’s agenda.

Most of the public remains seated.

We have a long discussion in camera – about 45 minutes.

When we return to the Council Chambers a significant portion of the public has remained.

Clerk Melissa Belmonte reports:

“As you are aware a closed meeting was held. The only item considered was a matter respecting the acquisition of property. There is nothing further to report.” 

Mayor Martin takes charge.

“As far as the staff report, do I have a motion,” asks the Mayor?

“Receive and file,” shouts Councillor Wright.

“All in favour?”

“Carried.”

“Motion to adjourn?”

“So moved.”

And, so, abruptly the proceedings are finished.  It is 11:15 p.m.  We should all go home.
But many citizens linger outside the Council Chambers chatting.

“What just happened Councillor,” I’m asked as I leave the Council Chambers?  “What was decided?”

“I’m sorry but I can’t tell you what went on in the in-camera session,” I respond meekly.

Councillors can’t talk about matters discussed in camera that remain confidential.  This, of course, is somewhat at odds with the duty of Council to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality.

 “OK, but what does receive and file mean?  Has the park been sold or what?”

It is a reasonable question.  But what is the appropriate answer?

“Hmm.  It means Council received the information contained in the staff report and didn’t act on it tonight and may or may not act on it in the future.  I’m not sure if that is helpful.”

Developer J.P Gormley

As one of the citizens begins to formulate another question J.P Gormley, his senior planner, associate planner and other subordinates pass the group on the way out of the building.

They look pleased.

-----